Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: Part of Global 200 marine ecoregions; 11,000+ species
Evidence B:Very important coral reef and mangrove area that is important for Biodiversity conservation and as a livelihood asset. But will be key that the BMUs and rural people are central to any lasting solution - key to this is supporting community conserved areas which include no-go areas - this seemed to work in the past (20 years ago). Communities need secure rights and responsibilities and be able to defend those rights. Many of the challenges for conservation are external to the local people (dynamiters, illegal mangrove felling and so forth). Not sure to what extent JCMAs are respected even if they exist - here there might be good plans - but the governance structures need to be in place to implement such plans. I am assuming that any Protected areas (new or extension) will be ICCAs that are formally respected (perhaps through BMUs. There is a big opportunity for real participatory (BMU, Village) land/water use planning - which can be done spatially - this would also agree on formal rights and resps
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Relatively low
Evidence B:not clear - but their could be C2 restoration in mangrove restoration (community based), as well as reef restoration and for the dry coastal forests
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: The proposal is unclear - it references specific marginalized groups, does not clearly specify
Evidence B:Not really clear - yes there are indigenous and local peoples who are the main group along this part of the coast. in terms of fishery management rights - it needs to move from “buy in from local communities” to own of secure rights (to sustainably use and management) and responsibilities (for management - including sanction). the BMUs can be a building block for management - and role of Fisheries should be more advisory, and policy support and sanction of last resort and not really as co-managers. BMUs can be classified as IPLC - but care needed so not dominated by vocal few.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: References general nature-based livelihoods
Evidence B:Yes - mostly - though it could do more on role of Indigenous management institutions for land and water use - e.g role of Kayas and their institutions, traditional rules/institutions - as this is key for future sustainable and improved management by local people
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Threats are largely generic and not well defined (invasive species, pollution, climate change)
Evidence B:generally well identified - but does not do enough as to the cause of these threats - it appears that local people are the cause! - but There are other external causes - dynamite fishing (powerful people from Tanga, Dar as well as Ke); mangrove destruction for building industry (coast, Arabian Gulf) and so on. So threats need to be understood from local perspective and external (to the area) and then how will the external threats be addressed (as this is often more difficult as it deals with power where communities may not be powerful enough to sort out such externa; threats
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: There is reference to existing co=management plans, integrated management plans, etc.
Evidence B:Policy for community based management (forests, land, fisheries) are there - but implementation is lacking - and this is a characteristic of Kenya - good policy poor implementation. therefore the project will need to have a strong “implement policy” effort to engage decision makers (esp County gov, but also Fisheries and Forestry
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: Active co-management plans in placed
Evidence B:Not clear on role of county and national government - much of the work seems to be through. This project should be firmly embedded in the CIDP and linked to at least Fisheries and Forestry Authorities at county level. This will also help make sure that there is a balance of focus between BD conservation, community based management, and livelihood improvement and security. I dont see Kenya Forest Service involvement either at county or national level
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: Numerous examples cited
Evidence B:There are a number of existing and recent - mainly NGO projects; in the Past KWS had community conservation projects - for the Marine PA and the mangrove management. Much can be learnt from these projects - as a means to both conserve and secure livelihoods
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: Numerous examples
Evidence B:There are a number of projects which are aligned, but not clear as to how synergy is achieved. One role this project can take is to really bring different projects together to inform and influence at county and national levels
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: Well-aligned but unremarkable, focusing on capacities, training
Evidence B:It is well aligned but might be over ambitious, and will be important to achieve balance between IPLC and BD conservation. Too much on BD might achieve environmental benefits at the expense of local and indigenous peoples security and livelihood improvement
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: Lacking an overall theory of change and cohesion, and linkage to threats
Evidence B:I think the outcomes and activities are probably too ambitious. Key for me - is BMU or village based land/sea management plans which specify rights, responsibilities and benefits. these can then be brought together as one larger Shimoni-Vanga Co Man plan - but important for real ownership that it starts at village level - which is the IPLC type level - such plans must be locally owned
Outcome 3 is means to end - so put capacity building into O1. in terms of the outcomes great clarity and logic could be developed about what will actually be the result - for example a). BMU land use plans developed and implement for all BMUs; b). XX Ha of forest restored as part of plans etc.
Too much process not enough what the process will result in
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: The contributions are poorly linked
Evidence B:All the outcomes are important (except that 03 should be merged with O1) - but really need to focus on what will be achieved, how it will benefit IPLCs and environment benefits. Work on the proposal along such lines would strenghten it greatly
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: Activities are well-aligned, and reasonable given the timeline and budget.
Evidence B:Broadly well aligned but need to take above comments into consideration. Focus on What will actually be done; and what it will take to do that - e.g. BMU land/sea plan implemented - requires it to be developed, ensure it embraces all stakeholders, have means to implement the plan
Such focus will help balance the level of ambition into what is achievable
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: Blue Ventures, BMU and numerous others
Evidence B:would be higher if county government projects and action were included
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: About 150K ha
Evidence B:This could be higher - as indicator 1 seen as N/A where there are probably large areas of potential ICCA (Kayas, community managed mangroves. Also land restored could include (through natural regeneration) coastal dry forest as well as mangroves
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: Clear goals, very well defined indicators
Evidence B:As they exist, they align - but in proposal development I would go for fewer stronger indicators - for example Mangroves restored; fishing effort reduced;
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: There is a lengthy description, but it is not compelling
Evidence B:There is long term vision and sustainablity but could be made much stronger - if we are building capacity for BMUs to plan (land/sea use plans), implement, monitor and learn and then do more pallning
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: Very well articulated
Evidence B:Could be stronger and provide some idea of anticipated C2 benefits. BUT C2 should really be a co-benefit to the benefits of managrove/forest/coral restoration and the livelihood and environmental benefits
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: Modear mainstreaming efforts (e.g., trainings aimed at women)
Evidence B:Moderate to good - and one key area to engage women will be in Village/BMU land/sea planning and action - and ensure women and mens activities are equally important and respected. Important that women are part of such local level governance structure (and not just the token lady-member)
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: Not entirely convincing
Evidence B:Taking a focus on BMU (village) and BMUs develop and implement their plans (and indeed monitor and learn from them) - this has tremendous potential for upscaling (rest of Kenya coast for ex)
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: Beneficiary only
Evidence B:Clearly IPLC led, but also has NGOs - would do well to also embrace county government. Will need someone experienced in participatory BMU/Village land/water management
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: Numerous examples of experience and impact
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: Wide range of partners identified
Evidence B:Focus on all the BMUs critical for long term sustainability and capacity building
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: Has all elements, very experienced
Evidence B:Not sure on what type of GEF besides SGP
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: they have implemented large grants of 400K through GEF-Small Grants Program
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: with a GEF project
Evidence B:Assume that by implementing GEF projects, it has to use GEF safeguards